Aloha Jeff,You are sharp, Jeff... John also disagreed with the initial USS AZ report which I cited. There are damage reports which are more detailed. Alas, I do not have total access to John's records. Gomen nasai,Shikata ga nai,Kampai,David Ai-ken

I would like to know what evidence David has that suggest that a bomb, not torpedo caused that splash if one did indeed occur. I persononally have not seen any photographic evidence that a bomb missed the ship on the port bow.Also, lets not forget that the bomb that struck Vestal's stern penetrated completely through the ship and exited on the port side before exploding. Maybe this is the geyser the crews saw.

Please keep in mind that the article you are referencing was written by John and not David.

A bomb exploding underneath a ship is not going to produce a geyser. Bubbles and splash, yes, but the ship would block and deflect the water above the explosion from shooting through the surface.

Jeff Sharp wrote:

Going back to the second photo, I marked the location of the geysers and the location of the bomb hits on Arizona and Vestal. If you equally space out the bombs, then the logical location of the unaccounted for bomb is in the water in-between the first geyser bomb and the Arizona bomb. This would indicate that the fateful bomb came from the 3rd (lead) plane in the formation, not the 2nd plane as De Virgilio suggests. The question I have now is...Who was in that 3rd plane?

There is no doubt in my mind this last photo was taken just an instant before Arizona exploded.

I'm not sold that you have four of the five hits here - one is missing and I don't think the time between Arizona's hit and explosion were long enough to account for the height/length of the two outboard "misses." I am not saying you are wrong, just that I haven't seen enough evidence to buy off on it yet.

Aloha Jeff,Alas, the 'ideal' VEE formation does not exist. One can not 'spread' the five planes neatly. Having flown in formation with other aircraft, the 'ideal' VEE is not ideal,,,alas. Knowing this and despite the painted upper surface formation guides, the crews were trained to shift their bomb drops for the most focused hope.

Oh, the Kaga strike photo was not immediately before the USS Az explosion. The order of the attack revealed the relation between hits/misses... some five plane formations had to 'go around' for second approaches...one even made a third 'go around'.

"A bomb exploding underneath a ship is not going to produce a geyser. Bubbles and splash, yes, but the ship would block and deflect the water above the explosion from shooting through the surface. "

Hmm! That's quite the assumption. Maybe we should test that theory?

"I'm not sold that you have four of the five hits here - one is missing and I don't think the time between Arizona's hit and explosion were long enough to account for the height/length of the two outboard "misses." I am not saying you are wrong, just that I haven't seen enough evidence to buy off on it yet."

What might those two geyser shaped objects be then if not bomb geysers?

"A bomb exploding underneath a ship is not going to produce a geyser. Bubbles and splash, yes, but the ship would block and deflect the water above the explosion from shooting through the surface."

Torpedoes make one heck of a geyser, and they explode against the side (contact fuse) or under (magnetic fuse) a ship. Why would a bomb be any different?

A dud would be one possible explanation for what is seen in the pictures. Reasonable guesses can be made to localize the likely area to search. Is there a technology which would allow locating a bomb there? Has the Parks Service ever thought about looking?

Aloha All,In 1982, I interviewed a USS Vestal vet with a unique view. He was below decks when a hole appeared in the overhead, then a hole appeared in the deck...which rapidly had a splash of muddy water from below. Interesting?Cheers,David Aiken

I'm not sold that you have four of the five hits here - one is missing and I don't think the time between Arizona's hit and explosion were long enough to account for the height/length of the two outboard "misses." I am not saying you are wrong, just that I haven't seen enough evidence to buy off on it yet.

Also, John claims that this hit on Arizona's stern came from the 2nd plane from the 1st bomb run. We all know that this bomb glanced off of turret #4 then went through the decks. Some reports say this bomb was a dud and did not explode. If a dud can cause this much disturbance in the water, why can't one that actually exploded (Vestal's stern)? Also, there is absolutely no evidence what so ever in this photo that bomb #3 went in-between Ariz and Vestal. Maybe we are looking at two bombs hitting the water on Ariz starboard side and the 3rd bomb was the one that actually hit the turret.

Last edited by Jeff Sharp on Thu May 31, 2018 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Torpedoes make one heck of a geyser, and they explode against the side (contact fuse) or under (magnetic fuse) a ship. Why would a bomb be any different?

A whole lotta reasons. First off, check out this video of a modern Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo hitting a ship. It's designed to explode under the ship, breaking it's back as opposed to the side-hitting contact Type 91 Mod 2 the Japanese dropped at Pearl Harbor. The type 91 Mod 2 had a 452 lbs warhead charge, the Mk 48 has a 650 lbs warhead, The type 91 side hitters, 2/3 the explosive charge by weight as the modern torpedo, and are producing geysers that are easily taller than the US Battleships are long. The larger warhead in the video doesn't produce anything like that at all.

It may be due to differences in depth (more pressure to resist) but we are also talking about a larger warhead. The main factor in the much smaller geyser is the effect of having an object directly above to take that upward shock wave and reflect it. The bomb simply could not push force straight up unless it came out of the ship at an extreme angle and was no longer underneath it when it exploded. Finally, the Type 99 bomb used at Pearl Harbor had a 66 pound explosive charge. It's going to create an air bubble, but it's going to be small and not have much force. It has to be considered that a good portion of it could have even vented back in through the ship from the hole it created on the way through (I don't think this is as likely but I'm not an expert).

InchHigh wrote:

Reasonable guesses can be made to localize the likely area to search. Is there a technology which would allow locating a bomb there? Has the Parks Service ever thought about looking?

Metal detectors and mud-piercing sonar would work well *IF* the harbor wasn't already full of debris from Arizona's explosion and nearly 100 years of Navy occupation.

Jeff Sharp wrote:

What might be those two geysers shaped objects then if not bomb geysers?

Counter question - how do you explain the missing geyser near the south quay if you are so sure that the two you believe are splashes leave that large of a geyser and trailing shower? The images are too distant and unclear to be sure of what's going on - the same reason I don't believe we have photographic proof of a midget sub firing on battleship row.

Tracy,I have just finished going through all the 93 pages on this forum in anticipation for scratch building a 1/192 Arizona. This week I will be finishing my build of the Missouri as she appeared at the time of the surrender, so the Arizona was the next logical ship to construct. I have Stillwell's book, Squadron At Sea's Arizona and the Karego 3D series Arizona, which comes with a set of 1/350 plans. My main source of information is Floating Drydocks' set of plans. I have a couple of questions in regards to these references.You have stated numerous times in this forum that the FDD plans have some inaccuracies. Is it possible to get a list of them so I can build as accurate a model as I can?I don't know if you have had a chance to look through the Kagero book and if you have what are your impressions in regards to accuracy. I had one I used for the Missouri, but I know there were a few errors in it although it was a lot of help in figuring out those hidden areas that always seem to appear in model building. I would also be interested in your opinion of their 1/350 plans, if you have seen them.I ask you these questions, as it appears after going through all these pages that you are the one to answer them, not that I wouldn't like to here from any other contributors. I know there are plenty of you out there that also have a lot of knowledge of the Arizona that will be of great benefit. I already have made a list of thread pages with information I believe will be of great assistance once I get into construction.Tracy you have helped me in the past on other models I have worked on, mainly the Alaska and the Missouri, and know I can trust you for accurate information.Thank you in advance for your input.

Counter question - how do you explain the missing geyser near the south quay if you are so sure that the two you believe are splashes leave that large of a geyser and trailing shower? The images are too distant and unclear to be sure of what's going on - the same reason I don't believe we have photographic proof of a midget sub firing on battleship row.

I can't explain it other than to speculate like everyone else is doing. Maybe the south quay bomb was a dud. Again, that's like asking how does John explain a bomb going in between Ariz's stern and Vestal's bow when no photographic evidence supports that claim at all. The whole reason I'm bringing all this up is because John's published article deserves to be questioned and challenged. I'm sure he did tremendous amounts of research before publishing this piece but it also appears he did his fair share of guessing and assuming as well.

The whole reason I'm bringing all this up is because John's published article deserves to be questioned and challenged. I'm sure he did tremendous amounts of research before publishing this piece but it also appears he did his fair share of guessing and assuming as well.

I believe that is true of all work. Unfortunately with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a lot of the records went down with the ships of the Kido Butai lost at Midway. I don't accept John's work as gospel but I bet he's about 75-90% right. There's a lot of things we'll never be able to know for sure, but honestly that is true of most history, and I ultimately accept that.

I'm such a geek when it comes to Arizona. I'm always trying to find little details that at least I wasn't aware of before.

Like this one. I never noticed before that the deck on top of the vegetable locker, which is right under the mainmast was not teaked like the rest of the boat deck. There appears to be a small rim all around the top of the vegetable locker separating it from the boat deck.

Last edited by Jeff Sharp on Thu May 31, 2018 12:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Nice screen grabs, Jeff. Like you, I am a "geek" for anything history but especially Arizona. I am always looking for some fine detail or "ah ha" moment too. With that in mind, one thing I have not personally seen accurately done with respect to Arizona models is the "break" in the deck and the aft 1.1" gun tubs and directors. Based on research and conversations with folks would know, I mocked-up how I believe the director mounts were. It still needs detailing and more research for the gun tub, but you get the general idea.

I believe the support for the 1.1" director platform should be a pole (thinner than what you have) as per what was installed on Pennsylvania in January of 1943. Item 5 in this picture shows what looks to me to be a 9-12" pipe. Note the vertical ladder and handrails that extend above on the outboard side.

Additionally, I believe Trumpeter got the pedestal for the 1.1" tub wrong and that it should be square. This photo of Maryland's 1.1" tub has a square base, and the raised tubs on Texas today are also square. I have no proof in plans, but who knows what the future may bring.

Hi Tracy, thanks for the feedback. I think you are right about the thinner pole rather than more substantial one I did. After I had already mocked this up, I recalled a conversation with someone who has been able to dive the wreck and he did say the pedestal is thinner. I also agree about the tub foundation. Looking at the picture of AZ at PSNY in late 1940, it is difficult to definitively say the base is round or square but I am of the mind it is square.

Tangent alert: paravane rigging on fo'c'sle... I seem to recall seeing someone model the smaller chains on the fo'c'sle and I have been curious as to what they were for. I surmised it was for the paravanes but wasn't sure until today. I found some pics online of the chains routed down to the forefoot, through a "paravane skeg", but these pics appear to have been EARLY 20th century (WW1?). I have done some basic searched for the rigging but haven't found much of anything useful.

Questions:How were the chains rigged on deck?How were they rigged on the side/bottom of the hulls?